Why would you need to argue that something is not explicitly there if I claim it is implied? implication by definition means it is not explicitly stated...
How is it you can actually read the opposite of what is written in a sentence? Seriously, you actually completely reversed the statement! You're not demonstrating great logic and reading comprehension by doing that. I said I argued something is explicitly there, not that something isn't. What? You argued specification for extra levels or magnitudes do is not there as at least part of the basis for your conclusion. I argued it is there because it's written quite clearly for everyone to see (raises the limit the +1 can increase the Characteristic to), so at least part of your stated basis for your conclusion is completely false.
Since this method isn't working, I'll go with counter-examples. You say the stacking of these CrFo spells is implied, meaning it isn't stated but it necessarily follows. That means any example contrary to it must contradict the rules. I'll give you some examples, and you find where they contradict any rule.
SG1: Active CrFo spells stack, repeatedly adding +1 to the Characteristic up to the limit set by the spell. (I'm not going to worry about stacking spells with different limits right now.)
SG2: (Added for clarity about what stacking people thing is implied.) Active CrFo spells stack, repeatedly adding their limits. (So +1 to a maximum of +2 stacked with a second +1 to a maximum of +2 gives +1 to a maximum of +4.)
SG3: Active CrFo spells do not stack, only the strongest for any given Characteristic applies. Additionally, no one has discovered a way to get more than +1 out of a single CrFo spell.
SG4: Active CrFo spells do not stack, only the strongest for any given Characteristic applies. You could develop higher-level CrFo spells that provide +2 or more with a single spell.
Since you're stating this implication, in theory you've already spotted the rules these contradict. So present the contradictions. If it cannot be shown that every one of these except yours contradicts the rules, then what you call an implication is no implication at all, just an option.
As the poster of the original question, I see we're going somewhat off the original topic.
I would like to suggest that the parties involved in this discussion relax and accept that an agreement will not be reached. If this spirals into more a heated debate, I see little benefit of continuing, only grief. I doubt anyone enjoys that. I know I don't.
Thank you for participating. I got an answer to my question, plus some good arguments.
One last statement-
no, that is not what I am arguing, that is a straw man you have presented, and 2) yes I have trouble comprehending your writing. Some of those sentances like
You argued specification for extra levels or magnitudes do is not there as at least part of the basis for your conclusion
simply make no sense. I suspect you have a point in there that you are trying to argue, from my perspective it is shifting with every post, and you simultaneously have attributed arguments to me that I have not made. Under these circumstances there is no point in continuing to discuss the topic. What I argued was an implied specification that in order to get more than +1 to a stat the spells had to stack since the limit specified by the spells was in the total they could be lifted to and that the specifications also stated a +1 per spell with no guidelines for a +2 or higher casting.
.
Liar. Everyone can read it above. Here it is in case you cannot find what you wrote:
See? You're arguing there is no specification in this case (CrFo) about "how effects can be specifically increased with higher levels," when there quite explicitly are such statements in the guidelines. You might want to figure out what your argument is better before shifting between posts and then falsely accusing others.
Here is the nail in the coffin for you:
The core ArM5 book repeatedly disagrees with you on this issue. The core book repeatedly shows that the listed guidelines are not exhaustive. To assume that other guidelines do not exist because they're not listed is nothing but a miscomprehension in reading, reasoning, or both. At least we all know now, since you're saying this was part of your "implication," that your "implication" is based off a serious error and therefore does not follow logically like you say it does.
My worry is that others might look at the thread to learn about spells stacking and read this false statement that there is an implication that some active spells stack, while there is no such implication at all. Then those others may be led astray because they're still trying to figure out the rules. Better for them to know there is no such implication and that they might choose to allow some stacking if they desire.
Since you cannot read the text I write correctly and believe I am making claims I am not making in your declarations of my "clear meaning" perhaps you should cease worrying about what others might read out of the text and concern yourself with your own comprehension. I can't even begin to try and pick apart the tangled web of errors you have made in reading what I have written.
When did I say "clear meaning"? Try a computer search. If you reference "[my] declarations" using quotes, you should actually be able to attribute that quote to me. But I didn't say it.
Did I ever claim you said it specified stacking rather than implied stacking? Nope.
Did I misquote you about the CrFo case being an exception to specifying about what a greater level or magnitude provides, despite in being in contradiction to the listed guidelines?
Did I misquote you saying that to get more than a +1 you have to stack because "+2 or higher" isn't listed, despite the core book completely disagreeing with the idea that there are no unlisted guidelines?
Meanwhile, have you yet been able to show how my example SG3 or SG4 contradict the rules at all? If you cannot, then you cannot show this is an implication. So, make it easy on yourself. You don't need to argue any other points successfully. Just show how this universe of non-stacking options violate the rules. Show us all where SG3 and SG4 contradict the rules. If you can show it, we'll all know you're right. If you cannot show it, we'll all know you're wrong.
If you want things to stack, and worry that it's too easily abused, you can always house-rule that magnitudes of spells stack for warping purposes. Six level 20 spells is a level 120 spell, which effectively gives 2 warping. Have a nice Warp!
Excuse me?
Muto spells change you based on your original form/shape/size/whatever. They change you. If I'd used Shape of the Woodland Prowler to turn into a wolf, I'd still need MuCo(An) to turn into bull, not simply MuAn. Tha's why the Bjornear outer mystery is useful.
This is no different. If I use MuCo to change my size, I change my size based on my original size. Simple as that.
1 Like
Except that that would be 0 Warping if you cast it on yourself. Cast it on yourself 1000 times and it'd still be 0 Warping.
The Warping is actually more dangerous individually on yourself than it is as a single, high-level spell. That same 1000 spells means 1 full day counts as roughly 3 years of continuous magic on yourself, which means roughly 1 Warping Point every 8 hours due to those 1000 spells.
yeah.. warping has some issues. I actually mis-spoke, due to mental shortcuts. I already was thinking that you needed some way to fix the self-cast, and was mentally tagging 60 levels as no longer caring if it's self-cast, since 30 was enough for someone else. So it would be 2 warping self-cast or 4 warping else-cast.
Well, there are still workarounds I didn't mention, too. Your familiar probably doesn't care about Warping, as it's likely your Familiar has Might. So the Familiar would be fine with 1000 +1's to Soak that last throughout the adventure. And if you want it for yourself? Put the low-level effect with unlimited uses and Moon duration in the Bond and have your familiar do the same for you.
Scaling it down from the arbitrary 1000 +1s, let's say you go with +2s for some efficiency without the level going really high. Let's also say you and your Familiar only want to spend 10 minutes of preparation on this every fortnight. Well, 10 minutes x 10 rounds/minute = 100 rounds. So with just those 10 minutes, you and your Familiar can each walk around with +200 Soak forever with no Warping.
yeah, I would like to see less ways to avoid warping. 
yes, because that is not what I said. In fact I do not believe I have used CrFo notation prior to this in this discussion, so anything about CrFo is your addition to my argument, not what I said.
Did I misquote you saying that to get more than a +1 you have to stack because "+2 or higher" isn't listed, despite the core book completely disagreeing with the idea that there are no unlisted guidelines?
To the degree that I never claimed that the core book stated there was no unlisted guidelines, and thus it did not disagree with me, but instead said that it was the implication because other guidelines do demonstrate an incremental effect to adding magnitudes, yes, this is also a misstatement of my position.
Meanwhile, have you yet been able to show how my example SG3 or SG4 contradict the rules at all? If you cannot, then you cannot show this is an implication.
because if Chewbacca is a wookie you must acquit? I see no connection between your statement and the point I was making, so no, that is not what it means. Which would be clear if you tried to understand my point instead of blowing your own horn about how smart you are and how illiterate I must be not to understand your tortured grammer.
Yup. And the wording of Preternatural Growth and Shrinking spells out what the guidelines don’t.
I was afraid there was a too easy loophole.
@callen and @silveroak would you please stop?
You are no longer arguing a point, you’re attacking each other. And it’s not helping anyone.
I had showed earlier I was talking about the Characteristic improvement guidelines and was shortening it to CrFo. That way I didn't have to keep writing CrAn or CrCo or CrMe. I never said you wrote "CrFo" itself; I said you were referring to the Characteristic improvement guidelines. That stuff is Creo + a Form. So, are you saying you were not referring to Characteristic improvement guidelines now?
Try again.
OK. I will apologize for this. I was presuming you understood logic. I take it back. For your statement to be logically correct, this is necessary. I accept now that you agree your statement about the implication was just wrong.
I will make it clearer for you. You said the rules imply that these Characteristic improvement spells stack. That means you're saying not having the Characteristics stack is in wrong, or else stacking wouldn't be the implication. Thus, if you're claiming the rules imply Characteristic improvement spells stack, you're claiming you know what these two SG examples violate the rules somehow. So show it.
I have tried to understand your point. And you've backed it up with a lack of logic and a refusal to actually cite the rules that back it up. I've understood your point enough to explain to you that I don't see your choice violating any rules. But saying the rules imply that is the right interpretation instead of just a possible interpretation is just flat wrong.
Are you sure about that? I thought the rules said you could now be affected by Animal spells. (HoH:MC Bjornaer section.) So why would MuAn not work on you? Can you show what you're using here?